State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula, 81 Ohio St. 3d 110

State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula

81 Ohio St. 3d 110

Ohio

1998

Check Treatment

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. The court of appeals correctly held that original’actions for extraordinary relief, e.g., a writ of procedendo, must be commenced by filing a complaint or petition rather than a motion. Civ.R. 3(A) (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court * * *.”); Loc.App.R. 8(B)(1) of the Court of Appeals .for the Eighth Appellate District (“These original actions shall be instituted by the filing of a verified complaint * * *.”); cf. Myles v. Wyatt (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 191, 580 N.E.2d 1080, 1081, where we affirmed the dismissal of a motion for a writ of mandamus.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.